I read one Reynolds novel in which religious liturgy in an arcane language was cynically regarded as deliberate mystification: a superficial analysis sharply contrasting with Anderson's empathetic treatment of religious beliefs and practices, whether Catholic or Buddhist.
And that is all that I can say about Reynolds but some blog readers will know more. Poul Anderson covers a universe of issues, thus connecting with a very wide range of other authors.
12 comments:
Reynolds had a rather... ah... simplistic approach to things.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree that he did, but he managed to write some good stories nonetheless, and even his flawed ideas, like using the amount of labor that went into something as the sole determinant of its value, gave me something to chew over when I was younger.
Best Regards,
Nicholas D. Rosen
Nicholas,
The labour theory of value! From Marx via Mack.
Paul.
Reynolds was what you might call a "vulgar Marxist" -- that is, a very literalist one.
BTW, Marx got the labor theory of value from the "political economists" of the early 19th century. In that, as in much else, he was a classic Victorian thinker.
Mr Stirling,
Yes, there is much that is essential to both Darwin and Marx that is not original to them.
Paul.
What is original to Darwin is not evolution but natural selection as the mechanism of evolution. What is original to Marx and Engels is not class conflict but such conflict as the mechanism of social change. I think.
Kaor, Paul!
And of course Marx got most of his "economics" drastically wrong. The value of an object or of the labor of the person who made is not determined by "labor", but by the value OTHERS place in it. It does not matter how much labor or toil a potter puts into what he makes if no one wants to buy them.
Sean
Sean,
There is something called "socially necessary labor time." Thus, if an artifact does have use value, then how much socially necessary labor time went into it? An item is cheaper if, thanks to machinery, it was possible to produce it in a shorter time.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I'm not sure I understand what "socially necessary labor time" means. The use of machinery can lower the costs of manufacturing goods, and thus make it more likely for them to be desired and purchased. Glass, for example, used to be rare and costly, mostly used by the wealthy. But modern means of producing glass has lowered the costs so much that almost everyone has glass products.
Sean
Sean,
"Socially necessary" means the shortest time necessary at the current state of technology. Thus, I take an hour to sew a garment by hand. You invest in new sewing machines and sew each garment in a few minutes.I go out of business.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And we might end up with the situation seen in "Quixote And The Windmill," massive technological unemployment. Altho some tailors might survive by providing specialized, personalized tailoring services using costly materials.
Sean
Post a Comment